Originally posted by AndrewBBD I actually mentioned in a thread a while ago how funny it is when people read too much into things that weren't really there. I think some EVIL DEAD reviews noted some "obvious influences", but it turned out Raimi hadn't even seen those films. It's possible it's BS, but I see more than a gore movie. But we can agree to disagree .

Originally posted by dwatts It's okay that we disagree. I honestly feel this film does not deserve much analysis time at all. To imagine that Deodato had anything other than making a shocking gore film, is stretching reality. The so called analysis of the "meaning" of this film is analysis applied after the event, and has more to say about the so called critics who would see "meaning" in a dog turd, than it does about the intention of the filmmaker himself.

Don't believe me? Well, I have the words of Deodato to back me up. You'll find the quotes in "Eaten Alive!" by Jay Slater (excellent book, by the way). In the section on CH Lloyd Kaufman says the following: "I once interviewed Deodato at his home in Italy, and asked him to comment on his views of the media (the entire interview can be found as a bonus feature on Troma's DVD release of Argento's Stendahl Syndrome, 1996). Deodato told me that if I planned on asking him stupid questions like that, he would stop the interview. He'd set out to make a movie about cannibals, and that's it."

I'll stick with the words of the man who made it. Plenty of others defend the film, and that's all well and good. However, imbuing it with some kind of intellectual merit - when in reality it's an exploitation flick like any other, just seems to me to be an excuse people use in order to enjoy watching this film, animal killings and all. I like plenty of the exploitation genre. However, I’m not going to pretend they are anything more than what they were intended to be – and that’s okay.

Click to expand...

I do not understand how so many people dismiss films as so simple. Think of the thought and detail that goes into a film. Thousands of dollars and hundreds of collaborators don't just get together to make a simple "cannibal" movie. There is obvious social context here dwatts, choose to ignore it or not.

An ironic contrast is made between "civil" society and the tribal age. We, the societal age, are the obvious cannibals, which is an opinion expressed by many of the better films of the 1970's (think TAXI DRIVER, MADAME ROSA, and EASY RIDER). Yeah, the movie has gore and animal cruelty, but that should not be held against the merit of the film as an indictment of 70's society. Right from the opening credits with Riz Ortolani's score it is established that this is a film abot loss and injustice. His score is haunting and somehwat out of place in the typical "cannibal" film.

A criticism of Robert Altman has always been that he makes sexist films. To that Altman has always said: "I don't make sexist films, I make films about sexism." To the same extent I think Deodato could just as easily claim he made CH as a film about cannibal exploitation. CANNIBAL FEROX is a film very much like CH, but the tone is much different and the intent of the film, I believe, is too. HOLOCAUST is much darker and much sadder than CF. From the animal cruelty to the murder of the tribeswoman by her own mate, the focus of the film is never diverted away from the melancholic regret of the entire movie.

As for what Deodato said about his film, I wouldn't believe everything the filmmaker says. Look at what some of the Coen brothers say about their films. For MILLER'S CROSSING they said they thought it would "be cool" to put some gay characters in, and that they just wanted to make a simple gangster movie. CROSSING, of course, is so much more than a simple gangster film, despite what the Coen's say about it. Many filmmakers, like Deodato for CH, refuse to talk at length about their films, because rally, like Chao mentioned, films ultimately belong to the viewer. A film should provoke thought, not tell you what to think. Spielberg has spoke at length about this, saying how he does not like talking about his films because he wants the viewers to experience them with a clean state of consciousness.

I think many of us take filmmakers for granted. It is not like someone just gets up one morning and becomes a professional filmmaker. A lot of thought and detail goes into a film, and to just label something a shallow genre demonstration is undermining the intelligence of all those involved in film.

We as a society will not believe a word a lawyer or politician says, yet when a filmmaker makes a single musing it is immediately perceived as fact. Opinions and ideas are so much more than just tidy little quotes. What Deodato has been quoted on many be the truth, but I'll bet almost everyone else on this forum will tell you otherwise dwatts. But hey, to each his own.

I think what you miss is context. Robert Altman compared to italian cannibal flicks or their makers? No way. Deodato a professional filmaker? Well sure, if you define a professional as someone who gets paid to do what they do - but his work is mostly third rate, at best. Just because someone makes a commercial film does not imbue them with talent. Further, it is clear that the italian films of this era (in this genre) were made to shock, and make money from the ideas of others by way of imitation and excess.

Dismiss what the filmmaker says about his film? Well, that sure makes life easier, doesn't it. Whom should we believe then? While I might not agree with filmmakers, I don't think we can simply ignore what they say and pretend we know better

Obviously we disagree - but I personally I don't feel that Speilberg and Altman should be mentioned in the same paragraph as Deodato. Nor can we compare their intent in making films.

As you say - each to their own. I stick with my - i"t's okay to like this film as a messed up experience. But talking about it as though it has some hidden meaning is a misfire of logic."

So dwatts, all the contrasts between civil society and primitive tribal life are just in there by chance? They have no meaning or ultimate point to them? I am not trying to be facetious, I just want to know how you can dismiss them as nothing but elements of a gorefest.

-- all the contrasts between civil society and primitive tribal life are just in there by chance?--

The film looks like a bunch of "modern" people dumped into a jungle where they meet cannibals.

Look at this description: "A scientific expedition happens to discover that gold exits on *** escarpment. The villainous Medford and Vandermeer kidnap *** and ***to extort from*** the location of the gold. Everyone is captured by wicked natives."

Huh! Modern man in Africa, mixing it up with "wicked natives"!

Oh, did I mention this is a description of "Tarzan's Secret Treasure" from 1941 starring good old Johnny Weissmuller?

I fail to see anymore significance in CH than I do in Fulci's Zombie (good modern doctor on island trying to save natives from desease) or Cannibal Holcaust (modern doctor using natives as guinea pigs) when more people come from modern society to save them. The plot of CH is not all that unique in the context of cannibal films, or even, in general terms in italian horror films overall. I just fail to see it.

I feel very confident in saying that CH would never have been made without the gore.

I pretty much agree with Rhett. I don't think Deodato intended for any sort of "message" to be in the movie but the "message" is there and that's all I'm concerned with. I actually enjoy the movie more for it's fucked-upness but by the end of the film I can't help but to realize that maybe society today is wrong.

Originally posted by dwatts
[BI fail to see anymore significance in CH than I do in Fulci's Zombie (good modern doctor on island trying to save natives from desease) or Cannibal Holcaust (modern doctor using natives as guinea pigs) when more people come from modern society to save them.[/B]